How many creationist here think that atheism and evolution go together?

[bhsmte]

Sure he is wrong when he says that, but I pointed out that you cannot known why he is wrong. Still you insist you know. But how does being wrong prove intention? It is not obvious to me why joshua writes what he does. In other words, you claim to posses some kind of knowledge of him which I don't have. Well, then, show it to me. Or wait, you said "it is obvious" - did you perhaps meant to say "it was revealed" to you?

Do you see where I am getting with this? You are making your self guilty to the same erroneous reasoning you accuse joshua of.

Excuse me for being guilty of taking joahua's posts, on their merit.

If you cant connect he denies what he needs to, because his faith is based on the bible being 100% correct, i cant help you. He has admitted this, in his own posts using his own words.

 

[In situ]

Quotes, prove nothing.

I liked the quote - I even found it funny. But I don't see what it is supposed to prove, or even if it tries to prove anything. What did I miss?

 

[In situ]

Excuse me for being guilty of taking joahua's posts, on their merit.

Is this suppose to be passive aggression?

If you cant connect he denies what he needs to, because his faith is based on the bible being 100% correct, i cant help you. He has admitted this, in his own posts using his own words.

How difficult is to understand that being wrong is not the same thing as being in denial? Just as an obvious example, have you for instance consider this as a possibility - an if so, why did you exclude that?

 

[In situ]

If you cant connect he denies what he needs to, because his faith is based on the bible being 100% correct, i cant help you. He has admitted this, in his own posts using his own words.

Btw, I asked you for evidence, and your evidence is no more than an appeal to me to "just understand you", in other words you now tell me that I need to have the same "revelation" as you had. Therefore, you are - again - guilty of the same erroneous reasoning you accuse others for.

 

[bhsmte]

Btw, I asked you for evidence, and your evidence is no more than an appeal to me to "just understand you", in other words you now tell me that I need to have the same "revelation" as you had. Therefore, you are - again - guilty of the same erroneous reasoning you accuse others for.

The evidence are joshua's own posts, do you read them?

They are his words, not mine.

 

[bhsmte]

Is this suppose to be passive aggression?



How difficult is to understand that being wrong is not the same thing as being in denial? Just as an obvious example, have you for instance consider this as a possibility - an if so, why did you exclude that?

He is in denial, because he cant stand the thought, his interpretation of the bible is wrong.

If you cant glean that from his posts, i cant help you.

 

[In situ]

I asked you why the word "science" was used as translation in thousands years old text and you gave mi this answer.

This all has to do with context. Daniel and his associates had been taken into captivity to Babylon. The king was looking for a few good men to serve him at a high level in the government. One area they were to be tested in was a high level of understanding or ability to understand science. This is not a Hebrew Knowledge so much as Science as the Babylonian people understood it. In the same way Paul and Timothy were talking about the Science of the Greek people. The key word here to qualify science is to have a proper understanding. So false science would result from a lack of understanding. God gives us wisdom, knowledge and understanding. All of these words would take a whole book to explain. Even the word Evolution has hundreds of thousands of books written to explain it. Science has knowledge and understanding but they usually lack wisdom.

I did not know this, quite interesting. Does that mean we shall not understand science at that time as we do understand science today?

 

[In situ]

The evidence are joshua's own posts, do you read them?

They are his words, not mine.

Okay, let me present some other words then:

"I have come to the conclusion, you [joshua] truly don't understand the different between; a claim and evidence."

Did you, or did you not, write those words in this post?

 

[In situ]

He is in denial, because he cant stand the thought, his interpretation of the bible is wrong.

If you cant glean that from his posts, i cant help you.

Not good enough, again you fail to present evidence. Instead you just repeat the same erroneous argument. That makes you guilty to anther fallacy you might have accuse your opponents for; repeating a false claim does not make it true.

 

[In situ]

The evidence are joshua's own posts, do you read them?

They are his words, not mine.

I have read his words and well aware that he have said the things you refer to. This post is a proof of that. Still your own words carries no evidence that you know his intention with his posting.

 

[In situ]

Is the truth that foreign to you?

You do know what in vivo veritas means right? (You can find it under my icon).

 

[In situ]

He is the beginning and the end.

This is an interesting claim. It reminds me of space-time. I don't know what you know about it but time and space is said to exists as a 4-dimensional object. In that spacetime everything that ever have happen and everything that ever will happen exists in a 4D object (our ordinary 3 space dimension + time as a fourth dimension). Spacetime is like an unmovable frozen existence of everything at every time. Our present is like a 3D "slide" (compare this with Plato's shadows on the wall) . Time - as we experience it - is a flow in this object. That does not mean anything flows. Everything is still unmovable. While we just experience this 3D slide, the present, past and the future all exists together, unmoved, in this object. The past never cease to exists, it is still there after we "left" the past. This object can be said to be "the beginning and the end" of everything that ever existed and will exist.

Now one need to be careful when interpreting this - one shall not confuse the map with the terrain.

 

[bhsmte]

I have read his words and well aware that he have said the things you refer to. This post is a proof of that. Still your own words carries no evidence that you know his intention with his posting.

That's cool. Lets just agree to disagree.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I agree. Was that from the bible or secular wisdom? ;-)

"Stumbling blocks" is in the bible but not stepping stones. In the Bible the way is a level road, the low spots are brought up and the high spots brought down.

Isaiah 57:14
And it will be said, "Build up, build up, prepare the way, Remove every obstacle out of the way of My people."

 

[In situ]

He is the one making the claim. I am only quoting what Collins said.

I realize that, however quoting someone does not imply the quote is valid as evidence. The violation of the validity can come in different variants. One variant is that one tries to extend the meaning of a quote beyond the original meaning. A second variant is that the quote appears to support a claim, but in broader context it does not. This is know as quote mining. A third, and I already mentioned this, the quoted claim may be of controversial nature, in other word it is not an established fact.

I do not think you been quote mining, however I think your quote falls into the category of the third (and possible the first) type of violation. This means you cannot use the quote to support your claim, unless you can show it does not violate any of the principles of being valid. So for instance can you given an example of two text books in genetics with a teen years difference in where the knowledge in one textbook is radical different than the other textbook?

For example. I have a counter example. For instance the 1st, 2nd and 3rd edition of Benjamin Lewis textbook Genes, has been used at university as textbook in genetics. It has the editions printed 1983, 1985 and 1987. That is span of 4 years, and yes while things been added the content has not changed radically in any sense.

You may say that this is not 10 years. True, but this is why I also have another example; Genetics - A molecular approach written by T.A. Brown. This book very much treat the same subject as Lewis book, and has also been used in the same way as Lewis Genes. Again there is 3 editions and the print years are 1990, 1992, 1998. These edition spans 8 years, and again while things been added the general content has not changed.

Now Lewis and Brown are two textbook used in the same classes with an 11 years difference. That should do. If Collins is right and I compare Lewis' 3rd edition from 1987 with Brown's 3rd edition from 1998 I should be reading two fundamental different books, shouldn't I?

But I don't.... the content is in principle the same, except for that Brown have includes research done since after 1987. This is only to be expected, Lewis couldn't possible have added knowledge from the future in his 1987 textbook, right?

This is why I think your claim, not Collins, is wrong (I still do not know why Collins said what he said). But I don't think we seen a "revolution" in our knowledge and understanding even for the past 100 years - only a slow increasing body of knowledge, standing on all previous knowledge, which grows every year, forcing textbook authors to regularly update academic textbooks to stay in touch with the latest research.

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you want to continue the debate in this kind of immature childish way?

Actually that's a basic doctrine we hold dearly.

The Bible says it, that settles it.

You can consider that an "immature childish way," but if you want to see how "adult" it can become, go to countries where just holding a Bible can get you killed and see how "childish" that is.

And if it's so "immature and childish" to believe It, why all the hullabaloo over It being in our schools?

Not to mention just one page of It ... one page ... summarized and placed on our courthouse lawns.

 

[AV1611VET]

Does not matter what you say or claim, the facts is such boat cannot withstand waves - it will break and sink.

And let me guess ...

Jesus would sink too, wouldn't He?

 

[In situ]

That's cool. Lets just agree to disagree.

"Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either."

Isn't it in yours?

But you want to quite now? You don't get it do you... This is not about Johsua but this is about your claims, nameley the claim that you know the intention of somebody's mind and the second claim that this claims is "obvious true".

I like to ask you these questions:

Did you, or did you not, in this post write the words:
#1 "I have come to the conclusion, you [joshua] truly don't understand the different between; a claim and evidence."

Did you, or did you not, in this post write the words:
#2 "I believe the evidence shows, he [joshua] readily denies well evidenced reality, that contradicts his faith beliefs"

Should I consider #1 or #2, or both or perhaps none of then when I examine the "obvious" evidence that joshua is in denial?

Did you, or did you not, in this post write the words:
#3 "Excuse me for being guilty of taking joahua's posts, on their merit."
If so, did you or did you not try to imply that quotes are evidence?

Did you, or did you not, in this post write the words:
#4 "If you cant glean that from his posts, i cant help you"

If so, did you or did you not try to imply that quotes are evidence?

And did you or did you not, imply that I must be able to understand his intention. Intentions are thought, in other word did you, or did you not, not imply that I must be able to read other peoples minds?

Did you, or did you not, in this post write the words:
#5 "Quotes, prove nothing."


Finally let me remind you of these words:

"some people, deny what can be shown with evidence to be true, as being true. Also, some people, will just claim something is true and not provide any evidence to support the same. When in doubt, look at the evidence to support the truth, or the claim of truth."


and these word:

"He [joshua] is not concerned with facts other than, to deny the ones that dont support his story."

Let me also make another quote:

"[T]he skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is"

 

[In situ]

And let me guess ...

Jesus would sink too, wouldn't He?

I dunno, you are the exptert on Jesus, you tell me.

 

[bhsmte]

"Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either."

Isn't it in yours?

But you want to quite now? You don't get it do you... This is not about Johsua but this is about your claims, nameley the claim that you know the intention of somebody's mind and the second claim that this claims is "obvious true".

I like to ask you these questions:

Did you, or did you not, in this post write the words:
#1 "I have come to the conclusion, you [joshua] truly don't understand the different between; a claim and evidence."

Did you, or did you not, in this post write the words:
#2 "I believe the evidence shows, he [joshua] readily denies well evidenced reality, that contradicts his faith beliefs"

Should I consider #1 or #2, or both or perhaps none of then when I examine the "obvious" evidence that joshua is in denial?

Did you, or did you not, in this post write the words:
#3 "Excuse me for being guilty of taking joahua's posts, on their merit."
If so, did you or did you not try to imply that quotes are evidence?

Did you, or did you not, in this post write the words:
#4 "If you cant glean that from his posts, i cant help you"

If so, did you or did you not try to imply that quotes are evidence?

And did you or did you not, imply that I must be able to understand his intention. Intentions are thought, in other word did you, or did you not, not imply that I must be able to read other peoples minds?

Did you, or did you not, in this post write the words:
#5 "Quotes, prove nothing."


Finally let me remind you of these words:

"some people, deny what can be shown with evidence to be true, as being true. Also, some people, will just claim something is true and not provide any evidence to support the same. When in doubt, look at the evidence to support the truth, or the claim of truth."


and these word:

"He [joshua] is not concerned with facts other than, to deny the ones that dont support his story."

Let me also make another quote:

"[T]he skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is"

Cool.

I stand by my previous posts on this topic.